On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I was referencing to the issue Robert discovered in his implementation. > > I do understand what the proposal is all about, but thank you for > re-clarifying that to me. :) > > > I don’t think it’s a bug, but it is definitely something that isn’t as > clear as it should have been. > Was it intentional on the part of the proposal, then, that there should be two modifiers meaning the same thing for a top level declaration in a file? Or was it intended that only one or the other be used in that scenario? > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 15. Juni 2016 um 21:40:37, Matthew Johnson ([email protected]) > schrieb: > > What seems like a nasty bug missed during review? I don’t follow you > there. > > This proposal was specifically designed to follow Swift’s design of a > scope-based access control mechanism rather than a type-based access > control mechanism that is common in other languages. > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
